RECENT FOREIGN INFLUENCE / FOREIGN PREFERENCE CASE VICTORIES

* * * * *

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (May 1, 2020)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of presenting a foreign influence risk due to several close relatives who are citizen-residents of Russia. Although Russia foreign influence cases often pose a challenge, we demonstrated that the client had established such deep and longstanding emotional, familial, social, and professional ties in the United States that he could reasonably be expected to resolve any conflict in favor of the U.S. We also presented significant “whole person” evidence, including witness testimony, that left little doubt about the client’s favorable character, integrity, and judgment. The totality of our case was sufficient to convince a DOHA judge that the client posed no discernible risk to national security. Security clearance granted.

Our client in this matter was a U.S. Government civilian employee accused of maintaining personal relationships in a hostile foreign country and of having previously worked for a foreign-owned enterprise in that country. The client was also accused of failing to cooperate with an FBI polygraph interview on his foreign contacts some years prior. We prepared a comprehensive defense to the allegations that demonstrated the vast majority of the client’s foreign contacts did not meet the threshold of “close and/or continuing”; that the client had worked for the foreign entity specifically to acquire foreign language skills that would be valuable to the U.S. government; that the client maintained such deep and longstanding ties in the U.S. that his allegiance could not reasonably be questioned; and that the client had acted reasonably and prudently under the circumstances. We further demonstrated that the client had, indeed, cooperated with the prior FBI polygraph and that the agency’s claim to the contrary was baseless. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (January 28, 2020)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of presenting a security risk due to family members in India and ownership of multiple properties in India totaling roughly $230,000 in value. We advised our client on acceptable means of divestment from his Indian properties and guided him through the process of securing documentation sufficient to satisfy U.S. government officials. We then prepared a comprehensive defense on the merits, highlighting the mitigating effect of our client’s deep and longstanding ties to the United States coupled with his demonstrated patriotism. Our efforts clearly demonstrated that any risk posed by our client’s relatives in India was outweighed by countervailing factors. Security clearance granted.

Our client in this matter was a U.S. Army Captain accused of presenting a security risk due to certain foreign contacts and allegedly mishandling classified information. The client had responded to a Statement of Reasons without representation some 18 months prior, but DoD CAF never received it and his security clearance was revoked by default. After a frustrating year of attempting to navigate the DoD bureaucracy on his own, he finally contacted us. Within literally one (1) week we were able to cut through the bureaucracy, get our client’s case where it needed to go, and get a favorable adjudication that allowed for immediate reinstatement of his clearance. Our client’s career is now back on track.

In this matter, we represented a DoD civilian employee and naturalized U.S. citizen born in modern-day Russia. Despite the client having resided here for decades, the government alleged that an unusual combination of circumstances raised both the potential for foreign influence and foreign preference. In responding to the allegations, we demonstrated that they were predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding: the client had no ties to or affinity for the Russian Federation. Rather, he had fled the former Soviet Union (USSR) — a country which no longer exists! — as a Jewish refugee. With that foundation in place, we deftly rebutted each of the multiple claims against our client using a combination of factual and legal arguments. Combined with a favorable whole-person presentation, we succeeded in obtaining a withdrawal of the Statement of Reasons.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (September 10, 2019)

Our client in this matter was a U.S. Airman accused of presenting a security risk due to two (2) estranged relatives in Cuba. Using a variety of mitigating information and legal arguments, we demonstrated that the client’s ties in the U.S. significantly outweighed his ties in Cuba; that the estranged family members were unlikely to ever be in a position to pressure or coerce the client; and that the client’s demonstrated patriotism was a positive indicator of his future reliability. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (July 10, 2019)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor with family members in Pakistan. We mounted a strong case for mitigation by demonstrating that the ties were not particularly close and, in any event, were significantly outweighed by the depth and breadth of the client’s familial, social, and financial ties in the United States. Combined with a strong “whole person” case, we succeeded in demonstrating that the client would resolve any conflict between her allegiance to the U.S. and her relatives in Pakistan in favor of the U.S. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (July 3, 2019)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor in South Korea accused of presenting a security risk due to in-laws who were citizen-residents of South Korea, including one who had completed compulsory service in the South Korean military. We presented a strong case in mitigation and rebuttal, demonstrating – among other things – that the client’s relationship with his in-laws was significantly outweighed by his relationships with his biological family in the U.S.; that the client had demonstrated his patriotism repeatedly via past service in the U.S. military; that his financial ties were exclusively to the United States; and that the client’s in-laws did not appear to pose a heightened risk. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (June 26, 2019)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a first-generation immigrant from India who was living the American dream. The government raised concerns about our client’s parents and in-laws who were citizen-residents of India, as well as a bank account and property investment the client maintained in that country. We demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that the client’s ties to India were significantly outweighed by his ties here in the United States; that the client had already demonstrated a favorable disposition toward his security obligations when dealing with sensitive information; and that the client ultimately posed no threat to national security. Following a hearing, a DOHA Administrative Judge agreed with our position. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “E” (May 29, 2019)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a first-generation American serving as a linguist for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The government raised concerns about the fact that this client still had immediate family members residing in Afghanistan, and that he had lived in the U.S. illegally for four years roughly a decade ago. In our case, we highlighted the reason why this client had previously overstayed his visa — he was on a Taliban “hit list” and told he’d be killed if he returned to Afghanistan — and demonstrated that his relationship with his family members there was not close. The clincher was our presentation of evidence that the client had survived a suicide bombing and opted notwithstanding that experience to return to the battlefield in service of our nation. The fact that this client had repeatedly risked his life in service to the United States served to significantly mitigate any risk to national security presented by his foreign relatives and prior unlawful stay in the U.S. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (May 10, 2019)

In this matter we were privileged to represent a first-generation Iraqi-American who had devoted many years of service as a forward-deployed interpreter for U.S. troops. Although the government indicated concern about the client’s relatives residing in Iraq – including one who serves in the Iraqi military – we demonstrated that those concerns were unfounded in light of the nature of the relationships, the depth and breadth of the client’s ties to the United States, and his demonstrated patriotism in serving on the front lines at great personal risk. Following a formal hearing, a DOHA Judge agreed that the client could be reasonably expected to resolve any conflict resulting from his Iraqi family members in favor of U.S. interests. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (April 30, 2019)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a senior U.S. government consultant with contacts in an allied European government and major military alliance. The nature of those ties were alleged to represent a potential foreign influence concern, notwithstanding the individual’s deep and extensive ties in the United States. We prepared an aggressive defense that highlighted not only the absurdity of deeming the foreign entities at issue a “heightened risk,” but also outlined how the client’s ties abroad paled in comparison to the connections at home. Combined with a favorable whole-person assessment, our efforts carried the day. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (April 11, 2019)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor with familial ties to both Kenya and Somalia. Although both countries pose a heightened risk due to terrorism potential, we mitigated concerns by demonstrating that: the client’s ties to these particular relatives were not close; the client’s ties to the United States (including his relatives here) were deep and longstanding; and that the client could be expected to resolve any conflict in favor of U.S. interests based upon a variety of factors. Security clearance granted.

OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY; GUIDELINE “B” (April 11, 2019)

In this matter we represented a U.S. intelligence agency employee accused of having personal friendships in an Asian country that created a security risk. We developed a comprehensive defense on the merits, which included: analysis of the allegations under the National Adjudicative Guidelines; an assessment of the client’s deep and longstanding ties to the United States; and a favorable “whole person” case. Despite a significant number of social ties to the foreign country, we succeeded in demonstrating that this client would clearly resolve any conflict in favor of the United States and could be entrusted with access to classified information. Security clearance revocation overturned.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “F” (March 26, 2019)

In this matter, we represented a DoD contractor stationed in the middle east. The contractor was accused of having tens of thousands of dollars in delinquent debt – primarily student loans – and of presenting an additional security risk because of his marriage to a foreign national. Although the wife’s family continues to reside abroad, we demonstrated that the totality of circumstances in this case, including the identity of the country at issue, posed no discernible national security risk. We then assisted the client in obtaining appropriate evidence of debt resolution and prepared a strong defense to claims that his once-delinquent debt evidenced irresponsibility or poor judgment. Ultimately, we succeeded in convincing a DOHA judge that this patriotic client warranted the government’s continued trust. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (March 4, 2019)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a U.S. military veteran and first generation immigrant accused of being a security risk due to family ties in South Korea. Although this case involved relatives actively serving in the South Korean military, we succeeded in demonstrating that the relationships with those specific relatives were not close and that such ties were significantly outweighed by the strength and nature of the client’s ties (familial, social, financial, and otherwise) in the United States. The client’s distinguished military career further highlighted the client’s allegiance to the United States and the unlikely prospect of the client being coerced into acting against U.S. interests by the client’s foreign relatives. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “C” (March 4, 2019)

Our client in this matter was a DoD employee accused of implicating the foreign preference guideline for acquiring Nigerian citizenship and a Nigerian passport. We challenged the allegation of acquiring Nigerian citizenship by demonstrating that it had actually been obtained for the client by his parents many years ago by operation of law. The passport issue we resolved by demonstrating that the reason for acquiring the passport was simply a matter of convenience as opposed to an indicator of foreign preference, and that the client’s ties to the United States were deep and longstanding. Security clearance retained.

OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY; GUIDELINE “B” (January 8, 2019)

Our client in this matter was an intelligence agency applicant accused of presenting a security risk due to a litany of foreign contacts, including one – a romantic interest – who was from a problematic foreign country. We prepared a comprehensive defense to foreign influence allegations by demonstrating that the client’s foreign contacts did not present a “heightened risk” because of their casual and contextual nature, particularly when compared to the client’s deep and longstanding U.S. ties. Concerns about the romantic interest were similarly mitigated by demonstrating a combination of the client’s deep and longstanding U.S. ties as well as the client’s willingness to place national security above the relationship – which the client did by attesting under penalty of perjury that the client had ended the relationship. Clearance denial reversed.

OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (January 8, 2019)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a first-generation immigrant from a former Soviet-bloc country who had dedicated her life to advancing U.S. intelligence community interests. Despite her demonstrated patriotism, her employer raised concerns about foreign influence/preference because she had allegedly retained a foreign passport and had ties to a couple family members still residing in the home country. We demonstrated that the agency’s concerns were unfounded by, among other things, providing evidence that the passport situation was caused by inadequate and conflicting advice from the agency, and demonstrating that the ties to the foreign family members did not present any heightened risk in light of the client’s deep and longstanding ties in the U.S. Clearance denial reversed.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (December 4, 2018)

We were privileged to represent in this matter a first generation immigrant from Afghanistan who risked his life to serve as an interpreter for U.S. Armed Forces during the initial years of the war there. For his bravery and courage, he received numerous awards from the Army. But he also paid a heavy price: his brother and father were targeted by the Taliban and killed because of the client’s cooperation with U.S. forces. Despite all of this, the government still attempted to paint this client as a security risk because of his mother and sister, who both remained in Afghanistan. We deftly rebutted that claim by pointing out the horrific but obvious reality: if the client hadn’t compromised U.S. interests previously, it is highly unlikely that he would do so now given his marriage to a U.S. citizen and the life he has been building successfully here. We offered a detailed case for mitigation in furtherance of that argument, plus a strong whole person assessment. The result was that the government granted our client the security clearance following a DOHA hearing.

Our client in this matter was a DHS employee whose wife had formerly served in the military of an allied foreign country and maintained minor financial ties to that country. We prepared a comprehensive defense to Foreign Influence allegations that included addressing the history of the relevant bilateral relationship, the nature and extent of the foreign ties, the passage of time since military service, and the nature and extent of the client’s strong ties to the U.S. On balance, we demonstrated that any risk of foreign influence was significantly outweighed by the client’s deep and longstanding ties to the U.S. and his patriotism. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “F” (August 2, 2018)

In this matter, we represented a DoD contractor and first generation immigrant from India. Although the client had demonstrated his allegiance to the United States in multiple ways, the government remained concerned about the risk of foreign influence due to several relationships and financial investments (bank account, stocks) the client maintained in India. We developed a strong “whole person” case for the client, highlighting – among other things – the strength and depth of his ties to the United States; the positive relationship between India and the United States; and the fact that the identified relationships did not pose a “heightened risk” to the U.S. national security. The totality of our preparation was sufficient to convince a judge that this client poses no risk. Clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (June 25, 2018)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor and a first-generation immigrant from Lebanon. The government raised security concerns about six of the client’s relatives in Lebanon, as well as his fractional ownership of a piece of real estate in that country. Despite the challenging security dynamics in that region of the world, we succeeded in preparing a strong case for our client. We highlighted the depth and longstanding nature of his ties in the United States, the benign relationships at issue, and the strength of the client’s financial picture in the United States (thereby blunting the potency of the overseas financial interest). Ultimately, the government opted to withdraw the Statement of Reasons and grant the security clearance without the need for a hearing.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (June 18, 2018)

We represented a DoD contractor and first-generation immigrant from Taiwan. In response to the government’s concerns about Applicant’s lingering familial relationships in Taiwan we presented compelling evidence of the strength and depth of Applicant’s ties in the United States and the extent to which those ties far outweigh his relationships abroad. We also presented evidence that Applicant had renounced his Taiwanese citizenship, surrendered his foreign passport, and severed all other non-familial ties to that country. Finally, we pushed back on the government’s efforts to equate Taiwan with the much more significant espionage risk posed by China. Our robust case succeeded in convincing a DOHA judge that this Applicant poses no risk to U.S. national security. Security clearance granted.

In this matter, we represented a DoD contractor who served in the armed forces of the Dominican Republic prior to moving to the United States, renouncing his DR citizenship, and relinquishing his foreign passport. Despite now being exclusively a U.S. citizen, the government expressed concerns regarding the Applicant’s past service to a foreign government, as well as the fact that the Applicant maintained ties with individuals who were serving – or who had served – in the DR military. This case presented a variety of challenges, however our attorneys worked diligently to build a strong case for mitigation. We identified a number of facts and circumstances that weighed in the client’s favor – including, but not limited to, the highly favorable nature of U.S. – D.R. ties. Ultimately, we succeeded in convincing a DOHA judge that this client’s true allegiance was solely to the United States. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (February 10, 2018)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor with relatives in Iraq and Lebanon. In response to the government’s foreign influence concerns, we prepared a strong case for mitigation that identified the Applicant’s track record of service to the United States as an interpreter in a war zone, as well as the Applicant’s deep and longstanding roots in the United States. The totality of our case was enough to successfully overcome the government’s evidence and convince a DOHA judge that our client could be reasonably expected to resolve any conflict in favor of the United States. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “E” (December 7, 2017)

Our client in this matter was an overseas DoD contractor who allegedly posed a security risk due to family ties in Kuwait and Indonesia, and because he had previously provided financial support to an ex-girlfriend in Thailand. This was a highly unusual case in that the government, without any evidence to support it, added a Guideline “E” allegation to the case on the eve of trial. The unspoken insinuation was that our client’s financial support to his ex-girlfriend was for nefarious purposes.

We mounted a robust defense on the issue of foreign influence, demonstrating through a variety of means that our client’s limited ties abroad could not reasonably serve as a basis for coercion or manipulation, and that his U.S. ties far outweighed them. We then attacked the government’s unfortunate and baseless efforts to impugn our client’s character — efforts which the judge quickly swatted down once we drew His Honor’s attention to them. The result was a total vindication of our client. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (December 4, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor and first generation Indian-American with lingering ties abroad. Specifically, he was alleged to have several blood relatives, including his parents, in India and to maintain a home and bank account there valued at a combined total of roughly $300,000. Utilizing our extensive experience in foreign influence cases, our attorneys prepared a strong case for mitigation by identifying a number of relevant facts and circumstances that negated national security risk. To avoid the uncertain outcome of a hearing, we then presented the government with a comprehensive discovery package and pressed hard for a withdrawal of the Statement of Reasons (SOR). Just hours before the hearing, the government dropped all allegations against our client and opted to grant his security clearance without the need for a formal hearing.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (November 28, 2017)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a first-generation Iranian American who is making outstanding contributions to the U.S. national defense. Despite those contributions, the government raised concerns about several relatives he had in Iran; specifically, whether the hostile nature of the Iranian regime created a heightened risk of duress or coercion, such that the client’s relatives could be used by the Iranian regime against the client. We conceded that the Iranian regime does pose an obvious threat to the United States, but we focused our case on the myriad countervailing considerations present here. Those included the Client’s strong ties in the United States, his demonstrated patriotism, the reasons he fled Iran, and his past favorable track record of security compliance. The totality of our case was strong enough to convince the government to withdraw the Statement of Reasons a week prior to a scheduled DOHA hearing. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (November 13, 2017)

In this matter, we represented a DoD contractor who was engaged to marry an officer in an allied European government’s military. Not only was the client’s fiance actively serving, but his parents and brother also served in the allied government’s military, rendering the entire family dependent on a foreign government. This was an extremely challenging case to defend, but our attorneys were up to the task. We prepared a detailed defense that highlighted the favorable nature of diplomatic relations between the two countries, the client’s deep and longstanding ties in the United States, and statements from numerous character witnesses regarding the client’s allegiance to the United States. At trial, our client testified credibly that she and her soon-to-be husband have committed to not discuss their work, and that she would never jeopardize her family’s reputation in the community be betraying the United States. Ultimately, the totality of our case persuaded a judge that the client did not present a national security risk. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (August 21, 2017)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a DoD contractor working and living in Southeast Asia. The government raised several issues of security significance in this case, all of which pertained to the clearance holder’s foreign national wife, in-laws, and a farm the family owned overseas. Our attorneys prepared a detailed defense in mitigation, highlighting the client’s strong ties to the United States, his previously exhibited patriotism, and the friendly nature of ties between the United States and the foreign country at issue. After a formal hearing in Washington, D.C., a judge found that all security concerns had been favorably resolved, thereby allowing our client to continue in his career. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (August 21, 2017)

Our Client in this matter was a DoD contractor with family and financial investments in India. The government alleged that those overseas ties created a substantial risk of foreign influence; our attorneys proved otherwise with a strong case for mitigation. Not only were we successful in proving that this client’s foreign family members posed no security risk to the United States, but we also convinced a judge that the client’s investments abroad were such a small percentage of his overall net worth that their potential coercive value by a hostile foreign actor was minimal. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (August 14, 2017)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a DoD contractor and first generation immigrant from Iran accused of presenting a security risk due to continued ties to that country. Specifically, it was alleged that the client’s parents and siblings continue to reside in Iran and that the client had exhibited foreign preference by obtaining an Iranian passport to visit her family. Subsequent to the hearing in this matter, SEAD 4 came into effect, thereby significantly altering the legal landscape as it pertained to foreign passports. Our attorneys filed a post-hearing motion for relief, which resulted in the government dropping the Guideline C allegations. As a result of our aggressive trial advocacy, the DOHA judge then determined that any risk to national security posed by the client’s relatives in Iran was significantly outweighed by her strong and longstanding (13 years) ties in the United States – including her marriage, other family, finances, and professional ties. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (July 25, 2017)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan who is an expert on food and drug safety. The government alleged that relatives our client had left behind in Pakistan posed a foreign influence risk. We presented a strong rebuttal based on the particular facts of this case, including the circumstances of the relationships, the nature of U.S.-Pakistani relations, and the extent to which the Client had flourished and built a life for herself in the United States. We then mounted a strong appeal for a favorable whole person determination, which included our client’s own testimony on relevant matters. Although Pakistan cases can sometimes be a challenge, the judge concluded in this case that our client was a “impressive witness” and that all concerns had been favorably resolved. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (June 22, 2017)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a highly successful senior executive in the defense contracting industry. Despite this client’s business success and demonstrated patriotism, the government still raised questions about his security clearance eligibility due to lingering familial and financial ties with his birth country of India. In response, our attorneys highlighted the major contributions this particular applicant had already made to U.S. national security. We supplemented that presentation with extensive evidence of the client’s personal, professional, and financial ties in the United States, as well as evidence regarding the favorable diplomatic relationship between the United States and India. Our case persuaded a DOHA judge that the client poses no risk to national security. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “C” (June 15, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a DoD civilian employee accused of exhibiting foreign preference by her possession and use of a Colombian passport. After making several key tactical decisions, we prepared a strong response to the Statement of Reasons that highlighted this client’s deep ties to the United States, as well as the situational necessity of her passport use. Perhaps most importantly, we argued that impending changes in the National Adjudicative Guidelines for Security Clearances rendered much of the government’s case moot. We requested that a PSAB decision be held in abeyance until the issuance of the new Guidelines – a request to which the Government acquiesced. The result was a favorable decision that allowed our client to obtain her security clearance and retain her career.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (May 31, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a NATO military adviser accused of presenting a security risk due to his relationship with a high-ranking foreign official. As in every foreign influence case, we began our defense with a strong whole person analysis that assessed the client’s ties to the United States and why he would not likely jeopardize them. We then attacked the foreign influence allegations directly by highlighting the tangential nature of the relationship, the lack of coercive potential, and the extent to which it was the natural byproduct of an overseas posting. After reviewing our response to a Statement of Reasons, the government concurred that no security risk existed. Instead of a hearing, the SOR was withdrawn without the need for further processing. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (May 26, 2017)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a true American hero: an Iraqi-American who risked his life daily for five (5) years while serving as an interpreter for U.S. soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom. This patriot was subsequently granted a special visa to immigrate to the United States, where he built a life and a family only to again volunteer to return to the Middle East as a U.S. military interpreter. Despite his tremendous sacrifices for our nation, the government still raised national security concerns due to several relatives remaining in Iraq. Specifically, the issue was whether those family members could be leveraged by a terrorist group to coerce our client to act against U.S. interests.

Our attorneys prepared an aggressive defense, which capitalized on the client’s outstanding record of service, his strong ties in the United States, and, perhaps most importantly, his history of subjecting himself to danger in Iraq under even more precarious circumstances than at present. Ultimately, we convinced a judge that any risk of coercion was substantially outweighed by countervailing considerations, and that public policy required heavy weight be afforded to the applicant’s prior combat service. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (May 24, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor charged with presenting a security risk due to numerous relatives in Pakistan and her possession of a national identification card from that country. Subsequent to the issuance of the SOR in this case, but prior to a hearing, the Applicant’s entire family lawfully immigrated from Pakistan to the United States. Our attorneys used that change of circumstances to successfully argue that the risk of foreign influence – as that term is legally defined – was now significantly diminished. We then leveraged the impending changes to security clearance guidelines (effective June 8, 2017) to argue that the issue of our client’s identity card use was now moot as a foreign preference concern. As a result of our pre-hearing efforts, we were successful in convincing the government to withdraw the SOR. Security clearance granted without the need for a hearing.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (May 15, 2017)

In this matter, we represented a DoD civilian employee whose engagement to a dual U.S.-Russian citizen was at issue. Despite the government’s allegations of heightened national security risk, our attorneys prepared a strong case that highlighted both the strength of the client’s U.S. ties, as well as the absence of most traditional markers of foreign influence. Our compelling response to a Statement of Reasons was sufficient for the government to find in our client’s favor without the need for a hearing. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (April 17, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of presenting a foreign influence risk due to multiple relatives in India, as well as possession of real estate and a bank account in that country. Although we typically request that clients divest from their foreign real estate holdings, this particular client was unable to do so and we were forced to prepare a case for mitigation based solely upon countervailing considerations – namely, the strength of his ties in the United States. Our experienced attorneys were able to do just that, successfully arguing that the client’s assets in India constituted only a small fraction of his net worth (thereby eliminating their potency for economic coercion), and his relationships with his U.S. family members far outweighed his relationships with extended family in India. This was a challenging case, but ultimately the judge sided with our client in a lengthy and favorable opinion. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (March 28, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of: using an Israeli passport while a U.S. citizen; serving in the Israeli military for two years; voting once in Israel while a U.S. citizen; and, having several relatives who are citizen-residents of Israel. The client opted to respond to the Statement of Reasons pro se (without legal representation), but retained us for a subsequent DOHA hearing. Immediately, our attorneys began preparing a strong defense on both the facts and the law. We highlighted the client’s strained relationship with his Israeli relatives, the close relationship between the two countries, and the unusual circumstances surrounding the passport use and voting. Our efforts, coupled with the client’s compelling testimony, resulted in a favorable decision on all counts for our client. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; GUIDELINE “B” (February 13, 2017)

In this matter, we represented a U.S. State Department contractor accused of presenting a security risk due to relatives and a bank account in Pakistan. We prepared a strong case that highlighted our client’s decades of honorable service, his deep ties to the United States, and the marginal nature of his relationships in Pakistan. An extensive “whole person” analysis cemented the fact that no reasonable likelihood existed of our client being pressured or coerced to betray the United States as a result of his minimal ties to Pakistan. Security clearance granted.

U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; GUIDELINE “B” (February 6, 2017)

In this case we represented a USAID contractor accused of presenting a foreign influence risk due to familial and financial ties in Egypt. Our attorneys prepared a strong response to the Statement of Reasons, which we then followed with an aggressive defense at a DOHA hearing. We presented powerful evidence regarding the client’s extensive pro-U.S. career history, her counter-veiling ties in the United States, and the favorable nature of U.S. – Egyptian military relations. The result was a win for our client on all counts. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (January 31, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor alleged to present a security risk due to numerous familial ties in Colombia. Our attorneys prepared a strong defense which we were prepared to litigate before a DOHA Administrative Judge. However, as a result of our pre-trial efforts, the government agreed to drop the case against our client just days before a scheduled hearing. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (January 24, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of being a security risk due to numerous relatives in India and his ownership of a property in that country valued at $75,000. The client responded to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) pro se, but retained our firm for the subsequent hearing. In the interim, our attorneys crafted a strong defense. We worked collaboratively with the client to establish evidence of the client’s ties in the U.S., researched case law, and presented a compelling case to the government in informal negotiations pre-trial. Ultimately, our efforts persuaded the government to drop the case without the need for a hearing. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (January 3, 2017)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of posing a national security risk due to multiple relatives in Egypt and her decision to vote in that country’s 2012 election. The client responded to her Statement of Reasons pro se (without counsel), but hired us for her DOHA hearing. Prior to the hearing, we worked extensively with the client to obtain evidence of mitigation. We meticulously researched the U.S.-Egypt relationship and prepared a motion for Administrative Notice that identified favorable factors regarding diplomatic and military ties between the two governments. At hearing, our client was well-prepared to testify and eloquently explained both the negligible bonds to her Egyptian family members and the strong connections she had in the United States. Combined with other favorable evidence regarding her decision to vote in 2012, our case was strong enough to convince a judge that our client poses no security threat. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (December 20, 2016)

Our client in this matter was a senior defense contractor accused of presenting a security risk due to numerous family ties in Egypt. We worked extensively with the client to gather mitigating evidence of both his patriotism and his deep ties in the United States. We then prepared a strong defense on the allegations, highlighting the nature of the client’s relationships, the employment and social status of those involved, and the low visibility of these individuals to a foreign government. Ultimately, the totality of our substantive and ‘whole person’ defense was enough to convince the government to withdraw the case against our client without the need for a hearing. Security Clearance granted.

In this matter, we represented a DoD contractor accused of presenting a security risk due to his exercise of dual U.S.-Taiwan citizenship and the existence of familial and financial ties in Taiwan. We aided the client in appropriately divesting from the foreign country and mitigating his other ties. We then prepared a compelling defense that highlighted the Client’s strong U.S. ties and the unusual situation surrounding his foreign property. At trial, we successfully convinced a judge that our client presented no national security risk to the United States. Clearance granted.

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor accused of presenting a security risk due to his exercise of dual U.S.-Chinese citizenship and the existence of familial and financial ties in Hong Kong. In preparing a defense, our attorneys quickly discovered that the government’s case was premised on partially inaccurate information. We then worked with the client to obtain extensive mitigating information and evidence of his patriotism. At trial, we successfully convinced a judge that our client presented no national security risk to the United States. Clearance granted.

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a DoD contractor in Japan. The client was accused of presenting a security risk due to dual U.S.-Japanese citizenship, acceptance of public benefits in Japan, and a variety of familial ties in that country. Our attorneys worked extensively with the client to prepare a strong defense on both the facts and the law. We leveraged our knowledge of DOHA case law to set the stage for victory, and we clinched it with a variety of compelling evidence that stood in stark contrast to the government’s depiction of the client. At trial, we succeeded in convincing a judge that our client poses no national security risk. Clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (November 13, 2016)

In this matter, we were privileged to represent a respected scientist with family in South Korea. The government alleged that those familial connections, along with other social contacts in South Korea, made our client a security risk on foreign influence grounds. We prepared a comprehensive defense that highlighted the strength of the client’s ties in the United States, his diligence in reporting his foreign contacts, and his favorable reputation in the community. The totality of the evidence was enough to persuade a judge that our client presents no security risk to the United States. Security clearance granted.

U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (November 3, 2016)

In this matter, we represented a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) employee issued a Statement of Reasons due to relatives, property, and other connections in Russia. We prepared a strong defense to the allegations, highlighting the nominal strength of the ties, the compelling circumstances, and the Applicant’s overwhelming evidence of loyalty to the United States. We also identified numerous inaccuracies in the agency’s report of investigation – issues that were critical to the defense. As a result of our efforts, we were successful in obtaining a withdrawal of the SOR without the need for a hearing.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (October 18, 2016)

Our client in this matter was a senior nuclear scientist with an impressive track record of service to our country. Nonetheless, his allegiance was called into question as a result of his dual citizenship with Italy, his ownership of two properties there, and his maintenance of an Italian bank account. Bigley Ranish, LLP Attorney Aileen Xenakis worked extensively with the client to develop mitigating evidence and prepare a response to the allegations. Although the allegations were factually correct, we provided strong legal and “whole person” arguments that ultimately carried the day. So strong was our case that the government opted to simply withdraw the Statement of Reasons (SOR) without the need for a hearing. Security clearance retained.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “C” (September 29, 2016)

We represented a U.S. Army officer accused of exhibiting foreign preference due to his possession of a Croatian passport. Our defense identified numerous mitigating factors and highlighted “whole person” evidence that tended to establish a clear preference for the United States over any foreign country. Ultimately, we proved that the Croatian passport was a situational necessity at one time – and that the soldier no longer needed it or maintained possession of it. In light of the record as a whole, a favorable decision was rendered for our client.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (September 19, 2016)

We represented a first generation immigrant from India accused of presenting a security risk due to relatives and a residential property in that country. In rebuttal, we offered a detailed analysis of the client’s stronger ties to the United States. We also highlighted recent positive improvements in U.S-India ties and prepared the client to testify in an adversarial proceeding. As a result of our efforts, after a formal hearing a judge found in our client’s favor. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (September 12, 2016)

We were privileged to represent a Department of Defense contractor accused of being a security risk due to several family members who were citizen-residents of India. Our Senior Counsel, Lee Schachter, worked extensively with the Client to obtain evidence of mitigation and prepare for a hearing. As a result of our pre-trial efforts, the government apparently realized that their case was not worth pursuing and opted to withdraw it just weeks before the scheduled court date. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (September 2, 2016)

We represented a DoD contractor accused of being a security risk due to familial relationships in Taiwan. We prepared a detailed response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) that highlighted the tangential nature of the ties and the client’s deep, longstanding ties in the United States. So strong was our case that the government opted to simply withdraw the SOR without the need for a hearing. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (August 25, 2016)

We represented a DoD contractor accused of being a security risk due to the fact that his mother and sister are citizen-residents of Iran. We aggressively attacked the government’s case, outlining the client’s deep and longstanding ties to the United States, his exhibited patriotism, and the lack of any substantive relationship with his elderly mother and estranged sister. Using our unique expertise, we managed to win this case solely off a written SOR response without the need for a hearing.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “C” (August 25, 2016)

We represented a DoD contractor accused of being a security risk due to his possession and renewal of a Canadian passport. We prepared a strong response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) that highlighted the client’s compelling and unique need for the passport, as well as his strict compliance with published rules of the Defense Security Service (DSS) regarding this issue. As a result, the government opted to withdraw the SOR and reinstate our client’s security clearance without the need for a hearing.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (August 25, 2016)

We represented a DoD contractor accused of being a security risk due to family ties in India. Those ties included several immediate family members who are citizens and residents of India (including one who serves in that country’s military) and an Indian bank account with a balance of $9,000. At a hearing before a DOHA judge we highlighted the client’s extensive ties in the United States, her exhibited patriotism, and the marginal relationship she has with her relatives in India. As a result, the judge decided in our client’s favor and granted our client’s security clearance.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “C” (July 26, 2016)

We represented a military police officer accused of foreign preference for his purportedly stated desire to enlist in the military of a friendly foreign country. This was a bizarre case, but one which we were able to easily make in our client’s favor by addressing the gross misinterpretation of his comments and highlighting his strong and unwavering ties to the United States. Security clearance granted based solely on a written SOR response.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “C” (May 5, 2016)

Our client in this matter was an active duty Air Force officer denied a security clearance on the basis of dual citizenship with Cuba and possession of a Cuban passport. Using our significant prior experience in similar cases, we successfully mitigated all security concerns and obtained a favorable decision from the Air Force Personnel Security Appeals Board. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (April 20, 2016)

In this matter we represented a DoD contractor issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) due to family ties in India, as well as his ownership of a bank account and apartment in that country. With solely a written SOR response we mitigated all security concerns and established that the client’s American allegiance could never be compromised by foreign influence. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “C” (April 12, 2016)

In this matter we represented a DoD contractor accused of being a security risk due to dual U.S. – Ecuadorian citizenship, as well as his possession of a national identity card from Ecuador. With just a written response to the SOR we mitigated all concerns over the client’s allegiances. We proved that the client had obtained his national identity card for a benign purpose, and facilitated its destruction in accordance with federal regulations. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (March 25, 2016)

Our client in this matter – a DoD contractor – was accused of being a national security risk due to her purported ties with Israel. Specifically, it was alleged that the client is a dual citizen, maintained an Israeli passport, and had various relatives in Israel.

We presented a strong case for mitigation, proving that the client’s dual citizenship was merely a product of her ancestry, that the Israeli passport has been destroyed, and that her prior use of the Israeli passport was in compliance with applicable law. We also proved that, on balance, the client’s allegiance is unequivocally with the United States. As a result, the government withdrew the Statement of Reasons without the need for a hearing. Clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (March 4, 2016)

Our client in this matter was a DoD contractor and a naturalized U.S. Citizen from China. The government alleged both foreign influence and foreign preference concerns based upon multiple relatives in China, ownership of property there, and possession of a Chinese passport. Despite the inherent difficulties of China foreign influence / preference cases, we were able to successfully mitigate all security concerns and prove that the client’s loyalties rest solely with the United States. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (January 25, 2016)

We represented a DoD contractor accused of being a security risk due to his ties with Pakistan. Despite having numerous relatives in Pakistan (including one who had previously worked for a foreign military), we proved that the client’s loyalties were solely to the United States and could not be swayed by foreign influence. Clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (January 11, 2016)

In this matter, we represented a Department of Defense contractor charged under both Guideline “B” (Foreign Influence) and Guideline “C” (Foreign Preference). Despite allegations that the client had German relatives, owned a home in Germany, and had voted in a German election, we presented overwhelming evidence that the client’s ties to the United States were stronger and that she posed no national security risk. The Statement of Reasons was withdrawn by the government without the need for a hearing.

Our DoD contractor client was charged with both foreign preference and foreign influence concerns over her ties with the Republic of Georgia. Specifically, the government alleged that our client had numerous friends and relatives in that country, maintained a foreign passport, and had exercised other privileges of foreign citizenship.

We prevailed by countering the government’s allegations with mitigating evidence and by showing that the client’s stronger ties to the United States were clearly more indicative of her allegiance. Clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “C” (November 19, 2015)

We represented a DoD contractor charged with Italian foreign preference concerns under Guideline “C.” Despite the fact that the client holds dual U.S.-Italian citizenship and was born and raised in Italy, our detailed, thoughtful case strategy demonstrated that the client’s ties to the United States were stronger than his ties to Italy. We further mitigated security concerns by highlighting the favorable nature of the relationship between the two countries. Clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “C” (October 27, 2015)

Our client in this matter – a decorated U.S. sailor – was accused of being a security risk due to his possession of a foreign passport and his apparent dual citizenship with Ecuador. We presented a strong case that identified multiple mitigating factors and highlighted the strength of the sailor’s ties to the United States. The Statement of Reasons was withdrawn by the government before trial.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (October 6, 2015)

The client in this case was a defense contractor accused of being a security risk due to her familial ties to South Korea, her contacts with representatives of the South Korean government, and her retention of a South Korean passport. We prevailed with an elaborate defense that proved, among other things, the incidental nature of the client’s government contacts, and the strength of her U.S. ties. Ultimately, we proved that the client’s loyalties are solely with the United States. SOR withdrawn / clearance granted before hearing.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (September 18, 2015)

We were privileged to represent a DoD Contractor charged with foreign influence under Guideline “B.” The government indicated concerns regarding the client’s relatives in Pakistan and the extent to which the client might be placed in a position of divided loyalties because of them. At trial, we presented a detailed balancing of the facts that showed any potential foreign influence was highly unlikely. We also provided sufficient evidence to show that the client would resolve any dispute between the two countries in favor of the United States. Clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” and “C” (August 25, 2015)

We represented in this case a DoD contractor accused of being a security risk because of family and financial ties with India. We prepared extensive evidence regarding the client’s strong ties with the United States, instructed the client on divesting from property investments in India, and documented how the client’s minority status in India negated any foreign preference risk. Security clearance granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” AND “C” (June 16, 2015)

We represented an extremely successful DoD contractor who was painted as a security concern by the government because of his financial generosity to family members in his home country. At an emotional hearing, we successfully proved that the applicant’s philanthropic heart does not reflect a lack of patriotism.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” AND “C” (June 5, 2015)

Our client, a decorated Airman, was accused of being a security risk due to family and financial ties with Pakistan. Despite numerous security allegations, we were successful in proving that the Airman is a patriot who would resolve any conflict between the two countries in favor of the United States. As a result, the Airman’s security clearance was restored and he now has a clear flight path for promotion (pun intended).

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (May 15, 2015)

The government accused a respected research scientist of being a security risk due to his Iranian heritage and ties with that country. Despite the fact that our client still had family in Iran and owned property there – not to mention the general difficulty of foreign influence cases involving Iran – we prevailed on the evidence and won our case.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINE “B” (April 8, 2015)

Our client, a naturalized U.S. citizen from India, was accused of being subject to foreign influence from family members still living in that country. Notably, one of these family members is employed by the Indian government. We neutralized all foreign influence concerns with a strong legal case, and the security clearance was granted.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; GUIDELINES “B” AND “F” (February 9, 2015)

A DOD employee was accused of accumulating $42,000 in unresolved debt and of having numerous relatives living in a hostile foreign country. We were able to prove that the employee had taken responsible actions to address his debts. We also proved that the employee’s relatives were not a security risk. The employee’s security clearance was restored.

*Each case is unique. Representations of past success are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction of future results. Cases involving multiple guidelines are reported under each guideline.